pcates

After getting back in racing after a long hiatus i've been thinking about taking the leap to carbon fiber and getting a Cervelo R3. Now the thing is the price of this bike is my budget limit, so that would mean i'd have to forgo anything else like say a set of race wheels or something like a powertap. Would i be better suited to get say the Team Soloist and a nice set of wheels or is a carbon fiber frame worth springing for? As much as i'd like to get a CF bike part of me wonders if its really worth the extra cash to race on one?

classic1

There's nothing wrong with the Al Soloist - CSC were winning big races on them a year or two ago. Personally I'd rather the Team soloist with nice wheels than an R3 with crappy wheels.

simplyred

If you can somehow squeak out a R3 with SL's you'll be in good shape. Most races here are crits, so I'd go the reference standard.

If you can - get the R3 frame, build the rest with used parts. Have fun...

ed073

Alooooominum is more than OK.

If you can't win on a metal Cervelo, you ain't gonna be winning on a carbon one either.

Stallionforce

I'm thinking that if you looked around for a used Cervelo, you could probably go Carbon with some nice wheels. If you don't want to go used, then as classic1 said, I'd go with the aluminum and a nice set of wheels. The aluminum soloist is a very nice bike.

Dubbayoo

+1. as long as the comfort is acceptable.

UmneyDurak

Also one thing to consider is how comfortable are you going to be on a carbon bike after a crash....
Anyway if you do go with Aluminum also consider CAAD9 or CAAD8 frames.

waterrockets 

I've been pwning a lot of carbon bikes on my 7-year-old 20-lb. steel bike in the crits. The frame isn't going to make much difference. There are weight arguments, but my frame is only about a pound heavier than higher end carbon, and I'm not doing long hill climbs.

I'd get a PowerTap and a coach unless you're really ready for a new bike for reliability reasons or something. If you just want a new bike, that's another story.

classic1

Actually, you've been pwning a lot of other riders. The frame material doesn't come into it.

merlinextraligh

A stiff, light, crisp handling, bike is an advantage, regardless of the material of which it's made.

Unfortunately, its only a minor advantage, and it still comes down to the motor.

WCroadie

Merlin said it best. I have 2 race bikes, neither are carbon. The bike is not the reason I am not winning every race.

Get a CAAD8 or 9 frame and build it up. It will probably be cheaper then the R3.

DocMatt

Here is my ride..Aluminum frame w/carbon fork, seat post, and rear end. Only weighs 18 lbs with everything on. The great thing is it is about 1/5th the cost of a full carbon.

[IMG][/IMG]

timmhaan

ALU is great. my last two bikes have been aluminum frames. they are light, stiff, snappy, and very responsive. i can't think of any reason why those features would put me at a disadvantage.

MDcatV

I'm on an R3. It's a great machine and I cant imagine riding and racing on a better bike. However, it was within my budgetary constraints. I didnt need to forego other things that may or may not benefit my ability to race successfully more than frame selection (wheels, coaching, misc.). If the R3 is a budgetary stretch for you, IMO, you'd be best suited to spend your $ on the Soloist Team, then spend the difference on (in order of preference to me) 1 - good coach; 2 - good race wheels; 3 - misc. items like groupset upgrade, switching out the stock for a prefered saddle, consumables (tubes, tires, bar tape, nutrition products) stuff like that; 4 - power measuring device.

bodaciousguy

but doesn't it feel great to beat carbon cervelos with a heavy beater bike?

waterrockets 

At the crit last week, one guy was back on his rain bike because of a race crash over the weekend. He was in a small pileup, got up, and saw 6 chanring tooth punctures in his carbon top tube. He was still pretty bummed.

I know any frame material can bend, break, or fall apart depending on any number of conditions, but that has to be painful to see -- especially considering the likelihood of a chain coming off during the crash, and then the ring hitting the other bike that hard.

stea1thviper

i honestly cant remember even one bike one of my competitors had. it doesnt even matter. i do remember faces tho.

Duke of Kent

I remember legs, asses and shoes, not bikes or faces.

Dubbayoo

LOL. good one.

jfmckenna

Ha Ha I am the same way except once they take off the helmet and glasses then I have no idea who they are. To the OP the short answer is NO. Wits and motor are what win a race and much of that is wits...

Ghostman

Of course they are an advantage, all else being equal.

Of course, all else is not equal and you may have budgetary constraints.

But good CF frames are lighter and stiffer and therefore a little faster at the margins.

And just because super strong racer on a steel beater beats mediocre racer on a carbon bike does not mean that the carbon frame "makes no difference."

I have heard the silly argument that the pros "only ride carbon" because the bike companies want to sell those bikes. B-S. Bike companies make their money by selling heavy steel and aluminum hybrids and cruisers and mountain bikes to the 98% of cyclists who do not race.

They want to win races (to improve their brand image across their entire product line) and the best frames now are made of CF.

That does not mean that your first priority should be to buy a CF frame. You should get a coach, better wheels, etc etc...

But don't listen to people who say CF is no better.

Duke of Kent

How is a 6.8kg carbon-framed bike any better than a 6.8kg aluminum-framed bike?

A Trek, Colnago, Time or Look vs. a CAAD9...I'd take the C-dizzle in a heart beat.

voltman

Which one is the C-dizzzle?

waterrockets 

I just had a 3-week email conversation with Cannondale about frame stiffness and efficiency, which was finally escalated to their engineers. The response I got is that it's too difficult to verify, but it's intuitive that a stiffer frame would be faster. Riiiight.

To group all carbon frames together and say that they are better because of the material is ridiculous. Compare a full CF Performance Scattante frame to a Cannondale SystemSix. If nothing else matters, at least the SystemSix is lighter -- and it's not because of CF.

A quality frame will offer some benefit regardless of the material, but most of that will be through ride and handling characteristics, and some of it through weight. If you like a short wheelbase super stiff frame, then my Ritchey is not for you. I'm more comfortable on my Ritchey, so it's faster for me.

Let's not forget that Ballan got 3rd in Roubaix '06 on a steel frame. It's the only euro-pro steel bike I've heard about in recent years, and it was ridden to a podium spot. Either the material didn't slow him down, or he should have won every race he did last year on a carbon bike. If there were more AL or steel frames in the pro peleton, we'd see more AL and steel wins.

Ghostman

At the same weight, and for most people's budgets, I agree with you.

But why does Liquigas use the SystemSix instead of the CAAD9?